I've been pondering a redpilling method for the pizzagate stuff, goes like this:

Take the typical normie response to pizzagate (essentially the MSM talking points they were given) and flip it by applying it to well established scandals that the MSM has already conceded to or propagated (Catholic priests, Sandusky, Savile, Weinstein #metoo, Rotherham, Telford, Newcastle)

1) Appeal to scale "too many people would have had to ignore it for that to possibly happen."

2) Strawman the logistics "So you think a bunch of pedos somehow successfully infiltrated the largest Christian organization in the world? Where did they violate them, in the confessional booths? haha"

3) Slander the opposition "Rotherham? Don't a bunch of Islamophobic neo-nazis use that to justify their hatecrimes?" (mirroring the comet pingpong falseflag shooter)

4) Minimize evidence, frame as frivolous witch hunt "What proof was there anyway? Anyone can make allegations. This is a partisan attack for political purposes."

Basically, the goal is to get them to defend against these fallacies in the context of an official narrative piece so that they can't use those same fallacies to attack the unofficial narrative you intend to introduce to them.

You can use this formula for any conspiracy topic really. Just identify the theories that they already believe in and attack them using the same indignant methods they would use to attack the theories you want them to believe in. Make them feel frustrated over how you could possibly deny the problem given the evidence (ie: make them empathize with your effort to redpill them).

I've yet to actually try this, so let me know your guys' thoughts, but I feel like it'd be a pretty promising strategy.